COA_Karl said:

Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is. The document tells you about a sample somebody chose to send, at a moment in time, and nothing about the vial in your hand. Independent purchase-and-test is a different quality of evidence and everything else is inference.

PedsEndoPhilly said:

Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

My vendor review relevant to certificates of analysis: ordered 6 times from my current compounder. Consistency has been excellent.

Shipping: 3-day with temperature monitor
Packaging: Professional, discreet, proper labeling with lot/batch numbers
Purity: 98.3% average across orders (Janoshik verified)
Customer service: Responsive within 1 hours
Price: $123/month for tirzepatide 10mg equivalent

RetaRick_CA said:

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is.

Reconstituted peptide stability data for certificates of analysis: I had Janoshik test my reconstituted vial at day 1, day 14, and day 28 stored in the refrigerator.

Day 1: 99.0% purity
Day 14: 98.2% purity
Day 28: 98.4% purity

Minimal degradation over 28 days when properly refrigerated. This confirms the standard 28-day beyond-use date is appropriate. Beyond 28 days, I'd reconstitute a fresh vial to be safe.

One thing that is still open after tammy_FL’s answer:

Why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Purity and content being different measurements was the piece I was missing. The vial was overfilled and pure, which is a very different problem from the one I thought I had.